Trump files US Supreme Court brief arguing for immunity from prosecution
Source: Reuters
March 19, 2024 3:28 PM EDT
WASHINGTON, March 19 (Reuters) - Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday filed a U.S. Supreme Court brief in his bid for immunity from prosecution for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss, with the case due to be argued before the justices next month.
Trump is appealing a lower court's rejection of his request to be shielded from the criminal case being pursued by Special Counsel Jack Smith because he was president when he took actions aimed at reversing President Joe Biden's election victory over him. The filing makes arguments similar to ones Trump's lawyers previously made seeking to shield him from prosecution, and echoes statements Trump has made on the campaign trail.
"The president cannot function, and the presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence, if the president faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office," the filing said. Trump, the first former president to be criminally prosecuted, is the Republican candidate challenging Democratic President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 U.S. election.
Smith was appointed by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022. In August 2023, Smith brought four federal criminal counts against Trump in the election subversion case, including conspiring to defraud the United States, obstructing the congressional certification of Biden's electoral victory and conspiring to do so, and conspiring against right of Americans to vote. The Supreme Court's decision to hear arguments on Trump's immunity bid on April 25 postponed the criminal trial, giving him a boost as he tries to delay prosecutions while running to regain the presidency. Trump has three other pending criminal cases.
Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-files-us-supreme-court-brief-arguing-immunity-prosecution-2024-03-19/
Link to filing (PDF) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/303418/20240319150454815_23-939%20-%20Brief%20for%20Petitioner.pdf
If at first you don't succeed, try try again and again and again and again and again and again and again and ag...
Aristus
(66,462 posts)all Presidents from now until forever immunity, certainly not Joe Biden, whom they hate.
They've got their well-paid, cushy little sinecure. They should just deny Trump's immunity plea, and let this country get back to healing from his disastrous administration.
ZonkerHarris
(24,254 posts)That's how corrupt these 6 are.
slightlv
(2,840 posts)They stated that was for only this case and no other cases behind or beyond this election. I always did say that sounded hinky right from the start. They appointed the president, but truly refused to take ownership of what they did.
I sure hope the same thing doesn't happen with *rump, but the thought has crossed my mind more than once, I'll have to admit. I absolutely do not trust this SCOTUS. They start from the conclusion they want, and then work backwards to make it so. If they can't find anything in law to back them up, they just make crap up. Typical R behavior!
ZonkerHarris
(24,254 posts)bluestarone
(17,030 posts)CousinIT
(9,257 posts)They have ZERO credibility and damn sure no sense of ethics or law. They are there to protect Trump, his MAGA cult, right-wing extremists, Talibangelicals, and billionaires and big corporations.
And that's all they're there for. That's why every one of them was nominated.
BlueKota
(1,780 posts)BOSSHOG
(37,099 posts)An old tome of a 17th century witch doctor to make it all legal. Brett will dust off a six pack to celebrate the find. Ginni will tell slappy what trump wants him to do. Amy will pray away the minority. And John cant wait to retire.
republianmushroom
(13,677 posts)37 months and counting
bucolic_frolic
(43,281 posts)This is just Donnie's ketchup again.
Blue Idaho
(5,057 posts)No way even this SC will do anything so obviously political for that fuck head. No one is willing to front him half a billion dollars and no one is going to give his a get out of jail card. He is now going to have to confirm to the world that he is the biggest loser.
BlueKota
(1,780 posts)I still believe they have most likely
already given him what he was really after which is to delay the trial until after the election.
Blue Idaho
(5,057 posts)What does he have - and what has it cost the SC?
BlueKota
(1,780 posts)I hope I am wrong, and I am just being paranoid, but the way the whole party is so blatantly defying norms like they have no concern what the majority of people think, or whether it might cost them votes, has me on edge. It's like everyone said oh Trump won't try to stay in office, but then he did try. Oh the court won't overturn Roe, but they did. Oh the court will just uphold U.S Court of Appeals on Presidental Immunity, but they didn't.
These people have already shown us they are willing to break long standing rules of conduct, so I can't just put blind faith, in their holding Trump accountable, and that he won't cheat, and that they won't help him cheat.
Evolve Dammit
(16,763 posts)BumRushDaShow
(129,442 posts)Kid Berwyn
(14,953 posts)Send him to Gitmo.
jmowreader
(50,562 posts)Are illegal actions taken to overturn an election that you lost "official acts"?
No one's arguing that a lot of the stupid shit Trump did were official acts. Case in point: the deal Trump cut with the Taliban to end the Afghan War. While it was clearly the wrong way to run a railroad, it was an official act.
On the other hand, getting together a few thousand of your friends to attack the Capitol during the vote-certification process, causing slates of fake electors to be convened, making a "perfect phone call" - Trump's version of Eric Cartman singing a song about how bad he hates Kyle's mom; that never came out well - to overturn the Georgia election, or any of the other illegal things he did were NOT official acts, and can't be treated as such.
intheflow
(28,501 posts)Volunteering in the hopes of getting a cabinet position or something, I guess. But the joke will be on them if theyre successful. They know too much and will be disappeared under TSFs authoritarian reign, should that horror ever come to pass.
NanaCat
(1,251 posts)Got retainers before they lifted a finger for him. Big retainers. It's the Tier-3 crowd like Alibaba or whatever her name is, who would be dumb and grasping enough to take the job without cash up front.
I'm shocked that so many people, even on DU, don't realize that good lawyers, especially criminal lawyers, are used to dealing with...you know...criminals, and thus know better than to trust a maybe someday payday from any of them. You get the pay up front, reimburse the client if anything's left over later. You never trust the word of a potential criminal. That's just common sense.
SeattleVet
(5,479 posts)It seems like he's the only one that has a pressing need to be immunized against criminal prosecution, for some reason.
Wonder why...
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,036 posts)PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,895 posts)Obviously I'm wrong.
Still, hasn't he lost every single case so far?
BumRushDaShow
(129,442 posts)D.C. Circuit - D.C. Circuit panel rules against Trumps immunity claim
2nd Circuit - Second Circuit strikes down Trumps request for presidential immunity
That's why pundits and others feel this is ridiculous for them to even take this.
(this is not counting all the "Executive Privilege cases that went on before this)
BlueKota
(1,780 posts)like most former Judges and Prosecutors thought they should, has me nervous too about what the six might be trying to pull.
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)BumRushDaShow
(129,442 posts)because the current President could then pick up the phone to "Seal Team 6" and have a nice chat.
BlueKota
(1,780 posts)BumRushDaShow
(129,442 posts)which are also the ones that can't be federally pardoned.
BlueKota
(1,780 posts)I would love it, if NY brings him down first!
BumRushDaShow
(129,442 posts)they pretty much already have. We'll have to stay tuned for next week (March 25).
BlueKota
(1,780 posts)LudwigPastorius
(9,170 posts)attack the Capitol and seize control of the lawful government was an official act?
I dont think so, asshole.
creeksneakers2
(7,476 posts)Today, Trump's attorneys filed an appeal with the Supreme Court dealing with his immunity claim for his criminal trial for among other things trying to steal the 2020 presidential election. The appeal is filled with nonsense.
Most of it is about whether a president can be criminally charged for his official acts. Its always been the law that official acts can be covered by immunity. Trump is not being charged for official acts. Nobody should seriously believe that carrying out a seven state conspiracy to create fraudulent electors was an official act. None of the charges against Trump are for official acts. They are for crimes.
Still the appeal rambles on, claiming Trump is charged with things like "communicating with the Vice President, the Vice President's official staff, and members of Congress to encourage them to exercise their official duties in the election certification process in accordance with the position, based on voluminous information available to President Trump in his official capacity, that the election was tainted by extensive fraud and irregularities." The appeal doesn't mention that Trump was trying to get the lawful vote of the electoral college to be thrown out when he was doing that.The appeal doesn't mention that Trump was informed by many that the election was in fact not tainted. It doesn't mention that the activity they name is NOT what Trump was charged with.
The appeal goes on to rephrase what happened too with other crimes to things that Trump was never charged with but they claim he was.
The appeal cites the landmark case Marbury v Madison. Trump's lawyers must be nuts to think they can fool anybody with that. Marbury v Madison is considered the most important case ever and every lawyer has had it covered in law school.
Marbury v Madison says:
"It follows, then, that the question whether the legality of an act of the head of a department be examinable in a court of justice or not must always depend on the nature of that act.
If some acts be examinable and others not, there must be some rule of law to guide the Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
In some instances, there may be difficulty in applying the rule to particular cases; but there cannot, it is believed, be much difficulty in laying down the rule."
Marbury distinguished between two kinds of official acts: discretionary and ministerial. Marbury said discretionary acts were not reviewable. But Marbury also said "when the legislature proceeds to impose on that officer other duties; when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law; is amenable to the laws for his conduct; and cannot at his discretion sport away the vested rights of others." Marbury made very clear that there is no immunity when the law is violated.
Trump's lawyers cited language from Marbury but only from the parts about the discretionary acts that weren't reviewable. They left out the rest.
Trump's lawyers also had lots to say about Presidents never being criminally prosecuted before and that's true. But Nixon probably would have been if Ford hadn't pardoned him. Clinton would have been too had he not reached a deal with a special prosecutor to give up his law license for five years and pay a steep fine.
Trump's lawyers tried to frighten the court with claims that if immunity is not declared that every president in the future would suffer from endless legal harassment. But it always been assumed that presidents could be charged with crimes. Congressional investigations from opposing parties have endlessly investigated trying to find them. While he was in office Nixon said, " when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal, by definition." Most people thought it was funny when he said that. Still, our presidents have managed somehow. The fact that no charges have been filed shows the Trump lawyer scenario doesn't happen.
Trump's lawyers have other arguments to that are also fruity. I've always considered the world immunity to mean that somebody could never be prosecuted. Trump's lawyers insist that presidents are immune but if they are impeached then the immunity magically disappears. I don't know how they can claim something so crazy with a straight face. The Circuit Court of appeals points out that impeached judges used that and other Trumpster arguments. The courts that heard them called the claims "tortured."
The Supreme Court has done all it could to drag its feet to benefit Trump. They pushed oral arguments for the immunity case all the way to the last day they would be in session - or for as long as they possibly could. Delay benefits Trump and if he can get elected and take office before the cases are over he can pardon himself. He says he won't but he's one of he biggest liars in history and I don't believe for a second he won't do it.
The Supreme Court has given the issue for appeal as: "Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct ALLEGED to involve official acts during his tenure in office." What could they possibly mean by ALLEGED? Things start out alleged but courts are supposed to decide if they are real or not before applying the law. Will the court end up with some absurd ruling that Trump trying to create fraudulent electors was an official act because he ALLEGED it was? If they do that I'm going to be very angry. Probably angrier than I've ever been. They just made a ridiculous ruling about Trump's ballot access. I think these corrupt bastards might do far worse.